Only 14% of Russians in Latvia think that Latvia was occupied - by them - as Soviets.  50,000 (primarily) Russians in Latvia celebrated Soviet “Victory” Day on May 9 in “Uzvaras” Park.  Can you be both a liberator and an occupier?  Can you celebrate your Soviet “victory” as a Russian on May 9 and then turn around and see yourself as a Soviet “occupier” in the country (Latvia) you just celebrated “liberating?” Is this the crux of the problem? 

For Russians, including Russians in Latvia, May 9 is a sacred holiday.  For Latvians, only one occupier, Nazi Germany, was eliminated on May 9; on May 10 continued the reoccupation of Latvia by the other occupier, the Soviet Union.  The occupation of Latvia by the Soviet Union is a historical fact recognized by the majority of the world except Russia. 

Why has Latvia as a country failed in seventeen years of post-Soviet independence to educate “Latvijas Tauta” about the historical fact of the Soviet occupation of Latvia?  Why has Latvia failed to educate “Latvijas Tauta” to share a common “Latvian history?”

At this point, what can done?  What should be done?  Is anything being done? 

Can there be any real solution without Russia, as heir to the Soviet Union, first acknowledging the occupation of Latvia by the Soviet Union?

There is no such an animal as “Latvijas Tauta”.  It is about time to abolish this archaic berkeley brownie slogan, and divide it in its proper parts:

Every legally permanent resident (pilsonis) in Latvia is:

1.  Citizen of Latvia.
2.  Ethnic “tautibas” representative as determined by race, tribe and blood lines.
3.  Believer in higher values as determined by ones religion.

These three points constitute legal “Pilsonis” and in aggregate “Latvijas Pilsonibu”.

That’s all.

Anti-Latvian demonstrations should be reciprocal.  Many ex-bolsheviks still insist that Latvian Legionnaires were members of Hitler’s SS.  Maybe we should organize a grand parade in Moscow on Hitler’s birthday.

Also how about raising some monies and putting up a statue in Stalingrad honoring the city’s liberator Adolf Hitler?

Good idea?

Mr. L. L.

Any questions of how to treat Latvian Independence from the occupation by Russia in the last decades is moot.  The history books will tell the truth.  Whenever the Russians bring up their occupation of Latvia, it should be answered with how the Latvians were subjugated to tyrannical rule by the Russians.

„There is no such an animal as “Latvijas Tauta”.  It is about time to abolish this archaic berkeley brownie slogan /…../”

This so-called ‘archaic berkeley brownie slogan’ is defined in the second article of Latvia’s constitution (see below).  It can legally be amended if at least half of the electorate supports a change proposed by a referendum.

E.

* * *

The second article of Latvia’s constitution:

2. The sovereign power of the State of Latvia is vested in the people of Latvia.
Source: http://www.saeima.lv/Likumdosana_eng/likumdosana_satversme.html

Satversmes otrais pants:

2. Latvijas valsts suverenā vara pieder Latvijas tautai.
Avots: http://www.saeima.lv/Likumdosana/likumdosana_satversme.html

Latvijas tauta, Latvijas tautai not Latvijas tautas and Latvijas tautam.  The English translation of “people of Latvia” is inadequate and fails to convey an essential unity. Also, the 4 General Provisions of the Constitution stand together and serve to unite the “people of Latvia” in an essential sense of Latvianness - “Latviska Latvia.”

Latvijas tauta savā brīvi vēlētā Satversmes sapulcē ir nolēmusi sev šādu valsts Satversmi:

1. nodaļa

Vispārējie noteikumi

1. Latvija ir neatkarīga demokrātiska republika.

2. Latvijas valsts suverenā vara pieder Latvijas tautai.

3. Latvijas valsts teritoriju starptautiskos līgumos noteiktās robežās sastāda Vidzeme, Latgale, Kurzeme un Zemgale.

4. Valsts valoda Latvijas Republikā ir latviešu valoda. Latvijas karogs ir sarkans ar baltu svītru.

(1998.gada 15.oktobra likuma redakcijā, kas stājas spēkā no 06.11.98.)[my bold].

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA

The people of Latvia, in freely elected Constitutional
Assembly, have adopted the following State Constitution:

Chapter I
General Provisions

1. Latvia is an independent democratic republic.

2. The sovereign power of the State of Latvia is vested in the people of Latvia.

3. The territory of the State of Latvia, within the borders established by international agreements, consists of Vidzeme, Latgale, Kurzeme and Zemgale.

4. The Latvian language is the official language in the Republic of Latvia. The national flag of Latvia shall be red with a band of white.

[15 October 1998]

More thoughts on “tauta” in “a nation state” from the blog kojinshugi:  http://www.kojinshugi.com/?p=533

http://www.kojinshugi.com/?p=533

“If you don’t like it here, then go back to Russia” is a treasonous sentiment in the United States, because that country is built on individualism. And they have rightly won their position in the world because of this basis. But the same statement in tiny Estonia is completely sensible. Because this country, distinct from Russia, is distinct because of one thing, and one thing only - the Estonian people, outnumbered by Russians 150 to one. We welcome guests, we welcome other ethnicities, but only if they want to become part of Estonian society. If your Russian ethnicity is so important to you, then the largest country in the world is situated right on our eastern border, filled with Russians and opportunities to be a Russian.

But since Russians have never been in danger of ceasing to exist as an ethnic group, I can only think of ignoble reasons to pine for such an opportunity. Isn’t the material well-being and future of your children worth more to you than the defense of something that isn’t even under attack? If not, why? And I think pride in your ethnic background is a pretty weak endorsement of your ancestors if there are 150 million of you. How about doing what large nations do and make something of yourselves, and not at the expense of others this time.

From http://allaboutlatvia.com/

More thoughts on Victory Day

Peteris C. to Aleks:

The monuments Russians, Soviets, et al. gather around on 9 May commemorate the Great Patriotic War that started in 1941 and ended in a glorious victory in 1945 — the victory of good over evil accomplished by the Soviet/Russian people.

In fact, the war started in 1939, when Stalin and Hitler made friends and cut up Europe to their mutual liking. The war did not end in Latvia in 1945 — the Red Army’s rapists were accompanied by the occupation regime and the NKVD — those were “embedded” amongst the victorious “liberators,” directly so.

The same glorious veterans, so human, who hang out at these monuments, were the same glorious gentlemen who hung out here as occupiers for decades, cutting in front of the line at the gastronomiya and doing everything they could to destroy the rebirth of this country in the late 1980s.

They teach their children and grandchildren the same things — that they vanquished evil, “Latvian fascists” included, and that a sorry and illegitimate regime is attempting to “revise history.” In reality — they are some of the main proponents of a slick, deceitful historiography based upon lies, rekindling the triumphalist horrors they were quite comfortable with for most of their lives.

I think your “[n]or was the post about politics” idea is a fantastic attempt at re-leveraging utter sūdi, as Tom suggested. Of course it’s about politics, and you play politics when you weigh in about “lesser evils” and indulge in these strange dances. It’s almost like “friendship between peoples” — oh, hey, that must have been apolitical, too?

Most of the people celebrating 9 May detest this country and its people, and you yourself have admitted that — “hatred toward everything Latvian is enormous.”

I disagree that the first four provisions of the Constitution dictate the idea of Latviska Latvia. Latvijas tauta is obviously not the same as latviešu tauta. And given that the passages about Latvijas tauta were written at the time when many non-Latvians lived in the country, it cannot mean latviska Latvija. Nothing would make a Baltic German or a Russian, or a Jew an ethnic Latvian. Heck, three languages were often spoken in the inter-war Saeima.

On occupation and liberation.

Technically, re-occupation of Latvia occurred when the Allies – the UK, the US and the USSR – divided up Europe, drew the borders of Poland at the Yalta conference in July-August 1945, when Germany was forced to give up occupied territories while the Soviet Union was not. That is the occupation. I mean, the US occupies Iraq at the moment - is it occupation or liberation? The UK and the US occupied Germany after the war - is it an occupation or a liberation? Presence of foreign troops alone does not constitutes an occupation (if it did then Latvia must have been occupied much earlier in 1939 when Ulmanis agreed to host the Soviet military bases in the country). 

I maintain though that by 1945 the war was over. The fighting in the Second World War ceased, but guerrilla warfare in the Baltics continued until late 1950s - the Occupation Museum has a nice exhibition on it this week. European nations including the Baltics were indeed liberated from the Nazi regime by the Soviets. Unfortunately, Western powers betrayed the policy of self-determination that won the Baltics their independence in 1918, leaving them as part of the Soviet Union, i.e. occupied by the Soviet forces.

Incidentally, where did the number 50,000 come from? And also, Uzvaras Parks is a historic name of the park much like Uzvaras bulvaris even before the World war II, so there’s “no need” for quotation marks.

The park was named as Czar Peter’s Park when it was planted, planted commemorating 200th anniversary of the Russian domination (occupation) in the Baltics. As you may know, Czar Peter I conquered the Baltics from Swedes in 1700s. In Uļmaņa laiki, people used the park for their darzniecības and then in 1930s the government wanted to create the whole square for people’s entertainment. The Dear Leader planned to build a stadium there and another complex superseding by its size and glory to the one in Berlin. Then, the park ceased being called the park and became a square - Uzvaras laukums.

In 1944, leaders of Riga’s Nazi were hanged there. Their clothes were stolen in the middle of the night.

In 1961, the park was renamed after the 22nd Party Congress. And then became the Uzvaras parks again in 1985 when the Victory monument was built.

So technically, if you want to return to the park its historic name, it should be named after Czar Peter I.

From http://allaboutlatvia.com
Thoughts on Victory Day

Tom Schmit [replying to Aleks]:

May 10th, 2008

… [I]t is a contest of loyalty. If LVs either go along with or do not challenge an interpretation (as set by Russians) that the victory is one that is a simple thing of victory over hitler, then they concede the rest of the point. No occupation. That is not true- there was an occupation. The remembrance is as it should be and Russians in LV need to understand that LV did not voluntarily join the USSR and that many of them came as a result of an occupation. That is important. I think that LV politicians do well to stay away and to remember in silence and with solemnity. It is about loyalty to a truth. There is some black and white here. The people who died may not have been fully responsible for it, but they died in, at least partial, service of subjugating people.

We should remember the deaths of all of those who died in all wars. War is madness. But when do we actually come to acknowledge what they died in service of?
[...]
In some ways the official LV understanding of the end of WWII probably should be either that 8 or 9th was the beginning of the third occupation or that it didn’t really end until soviet troops fully withdrew. Simple truth.

Pēteris Cedriņš answering Aleks:

May 10th, 2008

“My beef is about the overall attitude of the Latvian government when it comes to the end of the Second World War.”

Sorry, but I think your beef is poisonous. The end of the Second World War here, to put it simply, was the replacement of one totalitarian occupation by another, earlier one — both regimes having colluded to destroy Latvia. There’s nothing to celebrate. On this day (well, 8 May), I always read the Ērmanis poem in which he cries whilst those around him (in the European capitals) rejoice. There was no rejoicing in Rīga, for obvious reasons.

ambersun, please quit cutting and pasting and use your own words. Or have you none? Nor am I going to go through the same arguments I went through over at my site. Have you any original thought?

And is it really such a deadly sin to question the official Latvian interpretation of history?

LETA
9. maijs 2008

Piektdien, 9. maijā Uzvaras dienas svinību laikā slimnīcā divu promiļu lielā alkohola reibumā nogādāts kāds 15 gadus vecs jaunietis, informē telekompānijas LNT ziņu raidījums.

Kopumā svinības pie pieminekļa Padomju Latvijas un Rīgas atbrīvotājiem no nacistiskajiem iebrucējiem Rīgā šodien norisinās bez sadursmēm, taču, pēc jaunākās informācijas, par atrašanos sabiedriskā vietā ar atvērtu alkohola pudeli sodīti 32 cilvēki, bet seši aizvesti uz atskurbtuvi.
Savukārt par dabisko vajadzību nokārtošanu Uzvaras pieminekļa rajonā šodien sodīti četri cilvēki, ziņo LNT.
Policijas darbinieku apkopotā informācija liecina, ka kopumā parku apmeklējušas aptuveni 50 000 personas[my bold].
Jau ziņots, ka pēc plkst.17:00 gājienā no Strēlnieku laukuma Rīgā uz Uzvaras pieminekli pāri Akmens tiltam lēnā solī devās aptuveni 250 Uzvaras dienas svinētāji, galvenokārt krievu tautības pārstāvji. Gājiena priekšgalā divas meitenes nesa plakātu ar uzrakstu krievu valodā “Krievi, nepadodieties!”. Gājiena dalībnieki un citi Uzvaras dienas svinētāji pie minētā pieminekļa nolika ziedus, pieminot Otrajā pasaules karā kritušos.

Kā ziņots, šodien visas dienas garumā Rīgā, Uzvaras parkā, tiek svinēta Padomju Savienības uzvara Otrajā pasaules karā.

Uzvaras parkā pie pieminekļa Padomju Latvijas un Rīgas atbrīvotājiem no nacistiskajiem iebrucējiem līdz pat plkst.23 paredzēts rīkot svinīgu koncertu. Šo pasākumu pieteikusi politisko organizāciju apvienība “Par cilvēka tiesībām vienotā Latvijā” (PCTVL), informēja Rīgas pilsētas izpilddirektora preses sekretārs Uģis Vidauskis.

Approximately, then. It was really hard to estimate - people came and went from 8 a.m. until 11 p.m. This is why I was asking.

Ambersun, et al.,

I’m delighted that Aleksei has succeeded in provoking your return, but—“Uzvaras” parks? Why the quotes? As was already pointed out—the name of the park refers to a very different victory. The park was a favorite plaything of Latvia’s dictator, by the way, whose coup some people seem to have an odd penchant for celebrating today. He had grand plans for it.

Re: the so-called ‘archaic berkeley brownie slogan’—Elizabete hits the nail on the head as usual, obviously.

Re: The English translation of “people of Latvia” is inadequate and fails to convey an essential unity. As a translator—I can’t agree. “The Latvian people” is not “the people of Latvia,” and the latter phrase does indeed convey the meaning, and that was and is not only the letter but also the spirit of the law; it was devised by Miķelis Valters, who later regretted his device… but the “essential unity” idea contained therein is exactly the sort of unity—that of the political nation—that you and Mr LL would have trouble with. The minorities back then were just as troublesome as they are now—less of a percentage, and different by their diversity and structure (and—even—nature, but let’s not get into that...). The inclusiveness of the fundamental phrase was based on the hope of overcoming this disunity, not an “essential” unity—if you read texts from that era, that’s what people were concerned with. Rainis, responding to the sudden leap in anti-Semitism in the 1920s, for example, wrote that he knows how much the Germans, Italians and French of Switzerland feel Swiss, and that he is certain democracy will cure like problems in Latvia. Latvia never became Switzerland, dontcha know—and Rainis actually denounced Latvia for its politics quite early (note—he obviously had personal motives in there, too).

The cries for replacing the “Latvijas” with “latviešu” started up quite early, and became unbearably loud on the eve of the coup. The most fervent cries came from extremists and Fascists, and the cries became mainstream. Part of the victim complex—and part of the yearnings for the establishment of a nation on ethnic terms. None of that is unusual.

To me, the main difference between now and then is that we are not dealing with complexity in geopolitical or even cultural terms—we’re mostly dealing with the Soviet (who is a Russophone) vs. the Latvian. The Jews were killed, the dominant Germans “repatriated,” Poles are from a fellow European country, Belarusians are mostly Russophones, etc. (Roma are the most integrated minority linguistically).

In terms of political weight—if you subtract the non-citizens, who have zero political power, the Latvian weight is actually about the same.

On a deeper level—I think a big prob with this thinking is that Latvians just want to have a “normal” nation-state—i.e., one in which the Latvian nation (latviešu) has its state (minorities welcome). That’s why these debates see such stretched analogies. The trouble is that this never was a nation-state of that caliber. To build it upon hatred is both impossible and senseless. To build it upon a Latvijas tauta… well, it doesn’t exactly work.

Aleksei asked: And is it really such a deadly sin to question the official Latvian interpretation of history? This is where you get my hackles up. I don’t know of any “official” interpretation, unless you mean that some commissions, books, and sites by very diverse historians get sponsored by different government agencies.

What I will not accept is the Stalinist falsification of history, which is what many if not most Russians in Latvia indulge in. You pepper your own blog with recognition of that—just how anti-Latvian 9 May is, for instance—and it is unutterably silly to try to pretend that that’s just another interpretation.

There is no way whatsoever that one obtains “unity” (this is Vienības diena, is it not, heh) by compromising between truth and propaganda, Russia and Latvia, or fact and fiction. It just doesn’t work that way. Everybody has a right to his or her opinion or interpretation—but we are talking about people who live in Russian media space, complete with its venom, vs. people who are more or less committed to Latvia (which can contain its own venom, usually in polite doses).

Those are very different spaces, and one of them is alien, and necessarily so.

Vysu lobu,
/P

P.S.

I like to make a feature of my aesthetic, political and social contradictions, but generally people attempt synthesis where only absurdity is possible.

(Andrew Jordan)

Ну, слишком серьезно не надо относиться к моим словам. Завтра я могу изменить свое мнение по всем пунктам нашей с вами беседы.

(Alvis Hermanis)

/P